h the launch of versions in different languages.

All versions are similar, but d

ifferences exist in content and in editing practices. The English Wikipedia is n
ow one of more than 200 Wikipedias and is the largest with over 4.6 million arti
cles. As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million u
nique visitors each month.[13] Wikipedia has more than 22 million accounts, out
of which there were over 73,000 active editors globally as of May 2014.[2]
Wikipedia's accuracy is similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia being
much larger.[14][15] However, critics argue Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias.[1
6] Wikipedia as a resource about controversial topics is notoriously subject to
manipulation and spin.[15] Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies have
been criticised by prominent scholarly sources for undermining freedom of though
t and leading to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[17][18][19][20]
Contents
1 Openness
1.1 Restrictions
1.2 Review of changes
1.3 Vandalism
2 Policies and laws
2.1 Content policies and guidelines
3 Governance
3.1 Administrators
3.2 Dispute resolution
4 Community
4.1 Diversity
5 Language editions
6 History
7 Critical reception
7.1 Accuracy of content
7.2 Quality of writing
7.3 Coverage of topics and systemic bias
7.4 Explicit content
7.5 Privacy
7.6 Wikipedia conflicts in the media
8 Operation
8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters
8.2 Software operations and support
8.3 Automated editing
8.4 Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality
8.5 Hardware operations and support
8.6 Internal research and operational development
8.7 Internal news publications
9 Access to content
9.1 Content licensing
9.2 Methods of access
10 Impact
10.1 Readership
10.2 Cultural significance
10.3 Sister projects
Wikimedia
10.4 Publishing
10.5 Scientific use
11 Related projects
12 See also
13 References
13.1 Notes
14 Further reading
14.1 Academic studies
14.2 Books
14.3 Book reviews and other articles

15 External links
Openness
Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principl
e (i.e. waiting for an issue to cause enough problems before taking measure to s
olve it) regarding the security of its content.[21] It started almost entirely o
pen anyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any
reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all a
rticles would be published immediately. As a result, any article could contain i
naccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant te
xt.
Restrictions
Over time, the English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias gradually restricted
modifications. For example, in the English Wikipedia and some other language edi
tions, only registered users may create a new article.[22] On the English Wikipe
dia and some others, some particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages ar
e now "protected" to some degree.[23] A frequently vandalized article can be sem
i-protected, meaning that only certain editors are able to modify it.[24] A part
icularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able
to make changes.[25]
In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is
required for some editors. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable
versions" of articles,[26] which have passed certain reviews. Following protract
ed trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pendin
g changes" system in December 2012.[27] Under this system, new users' edits to c
ertain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are "subject to review from an
established Wikipedia editor before publication".[28]
The editing interface of Wikipedia
Review of changes
Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikip
edia provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Th
e "History" page of each article links to each revision.[notes 2][29] On most ar
ticles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's hist
ory page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone may maintai
n a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any ch
anges. "New pages patrol" is a process whereby newly created articles are checke
d for obvious problems.[30]
In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction
costs of participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative developmen
t, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page fav
or "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[31]
Vandalism
Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia
Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integri
ty of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of va
ndalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also inc
lude advertising language and other types of spam.[32] Sometimes editors commit
vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common
types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false info
rmation to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce ir
relevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categoriz
ation, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively.
[33]

White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.

American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927 2014), subject of the Seigenthaler inc
ident
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; the median tim
e to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[34][35] However, some vandalism
takes much longer to repair.[36]
In the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced
false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenth
aler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely presented as a suspect in the assassi
nation of John F. Kennedy.[36] The article remained uncorrected for four months.
[36] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of t
he Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikiped
ia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contri
buted the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrato
r was eventually traced.[37][38] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wiki
pedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[36] This incident led to po
licy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiabil
ity of biographical articles of living people.[39]
Policies and laws
See also: Wikipedia:Five Pillars
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of t
he United States and of the U.S. state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipe
dia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wik
ipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guideline
s intended to appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki f
orm, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guideline
s.[40] Editors can enforce these rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant ma
terial. Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on
a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged
to some extent.[26]
Content policies and guidelines
Main pages: Wikipedia:Content policies and Wikipedia:Content guidelines
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be
about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionarylike.[41] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[42] wh
ich generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or
major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. F
urther, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established a
nd recognized.[43] It must not present original research. A claim that is likely
t